On 2016-04-04 13:54:34 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote: > On 03/30/2016 11:00 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > >On 26 March 2016 at 09:08, Jeremy Stanley <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On 2016-03-25 15:20:00 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote: > >>[...] > >>>3) The upstream Infrastructure team works with the hired system > >>>administrators to create a single CI system that can spawn > >>>functional test jobs on the lab hardware and report results back > >>>to upstream Gerrit > >>[...] > >> > >>This bit is something the TripleO team has struggled to accomplish > >>over the past several years (running a custom OpenStack deployment > >>tied directly into our CI), so at a minimum we'd want to know how > >>the proposed implementation would succeed in ways that they've so > >>far found a significant challenge even with a larger sysadmin team > >>than you estimate being required. > > > >I think what Jay is getting at is to have the *exact same approach* > >third-party CI for NFV and PCI have been using - so whatever > >$behind-the-abstraction setup they are using, but community accessible > >and visible, unlike the current behind-corprorate-firewall setups. > > > >I'm not saying this is better or worse, but it is different to the > >tripleo approach of providing a Nova API endpoint for zuul. > > Yes, thank you Rob, that is precisely what I'm getting at.
In that case, I'm not sure a third-party CI system needs close coordination with "The upstream Infrastructure team" nor "hired system administrators" employed by the OpenStack Foundation, which were the parts of the original proposal I was concerned with. Set up a third-party CI system and start voting on changes (with the consent of those projects anyway). -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
